Reuters reported this week that the U.S. Army had used up much of its global stockpile of long-range precision missiles during the five-month conflict with Iran, raising concerns about military readiness for future crises.

President Donald Trump on Thursday played down concerns over weapons shortages, saying the U.S. had an almost unlimited supply of some munitions while acknowledging stocks of others were tighter. He added that U.S. defense companies were expanding production capacity.

Rheinmetall signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed last month to jointly produce Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, at Rheinmetall’s Unterluess plant in northern Germany. Production facilities are due to be set up next year.

“Naturally, there will also be sufficient capacity to replenish the U.S. military arsenals depleted by the conflict involving Iran,” CEO Armin Papperger told Reuters in an interview conducted on Thursday but published on Friday.

“That won’t happen in two years. It will take much longer.”

Defense companies across the world are racing to meet a surge in demand as governments step up military spending amid conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and U.S. pressure for Europe to take more responsibility for its own security.

Helping build Europe’s defenses

Rheinmetall has been among the biggest beneficiaries of Europe’s drive to raise defense spending.

Europe’s largest ammunition maker has pursued partnerships and acquisitions to rapidly expand production capacity to meet growing demand.

The ATACMS joint venture still requires approval, but Papperger said the process was well advanced and had the backing of the U.S. government.

The partners intend to target the global market for ATACMS missiles, he added. “There will be a market for missiles for the next 15 years.”

Rheinmetall expects the joint venture to generate its first revenue in 2028, the CEO said.

Talks needed with new Leonardo CEO

Papperger said Rheinmetall remained interested in acquiring Iveco’s military truck business from Italy’s Leonardo, but future talks would depend on new CEO Lorenzo Mariani.

“I had a handshake agreement with his predecessor,” said Papperger. “Mariani can decide on new terms, and we will see if they remain attractive to Rheinmetall.”

The deal is not at risk, Papperger added, saying he hopes to meet Mariani after the summer break.

Boxer contract expected by year-end

Rheinmetall, which on Thursday cut its sales outlook after Germany canceled its F126 frigate program, also expects a multibillion-euro contract to supply Boxer armored vehicles to the German military to be signed by year-end, Papperger said.

“There is absolutely nothing standing in the way,” he said.

Rheinmetall’s share of the contract would be worth €12.4 billion ($14.3 billion), while the total value, including partner KNDS, is expected to reach about €25 billion.

The airlifter, tail number 01-0194, assigned to the 445th Airlift Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was parked overnight at Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport in Texas on March 4, 2025, when severe storms and microbursts of up to 80 mph sent two private Bombardier Challenger jets careening into it.

Video shot that morning showed one of the business jets come to rest beneath the C-17’s wing. The same storm system damaged numerous aircraft at airports across the metroplex.

The collision damaged the C-17’s left-side door, fuselage and nose. The crew flew it home with a Boeing-qualified and Air Force-approved temporary nose panel and landing gear down.

Back in Ohio, maintainers repaired the door and fuselage but determined the left nose panel had to be replaced, which is where the job stalled.

Boeing was unable to find a vendor willing to build tooling for a single nose panel, according to the Air Force. After an unsuccessful repair attempt, the jet was looking at a year in storage followed by another year of repair work, sidelining one of only nine C-17s the wing counts as mission-essential.

The wing turned to the Air Force Rapid Sustainment Office (RSO), a Life Cycle Management Center division at Wright-Patterson that hunts for ways to fabricate parts the supply chain can’t deliver.

Engineers there deemed the panel a good candidate for incremental sheet forming, or ISF, in which a robot presses a flat metal sheet into shape a little at a time. Because the machine follows a digital path rather than a mold, tooling is unnecessary.

Working with the University of Dayton Research Institute, the team began production in January 2026. Boeing, along with maintainers from the wing, installed the finished panel in July, and 01-0194 took to the skies again July 30, nearly 17 months after the storm.

“This is a tremendous win for our maintenance group,” Col. Karen Gharst, the 445th Maintenance Group commander, said in a statement. “Using the ISF technology to rapidly produce an otherwise unobtainable part allowed us to avoid a prolonged work stoppage.”

The event marks the first incrementally formed part to fly on an Air Force aircraft.

Boeing closed the C-17 line in 2015, and the Air Force expects to fly the fleet into the 2070s, meaning this may not be the last time the service has to hunt for parts nobody makes anymore.

The RSO is currently working on parts for a KC-135 and an F-15.

Boeing’s BSU-111/B Payload Delivery Unit is a wing-and-turbojet engine kit that converts a 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) into a long-range JDAM (JDAM LR) dubbed the GBU-75. The result is a gravity bomb with the reach of a cruise missile.

Boeing said it has spent nearly $100 million of its own money on the program.

“Scaling production of the GBU-75 will provide the fleet with an affordable, sustainable solution designed to eliminate long-range land and sea-based threats to U.S. and international forces,” said Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing Precision Engagement Systems.

The BSU-111/B wing-and-engine kit is the latest modification to the JDAM family, which has previously seen the gravity bomb receive a tail kit that steered it roughly 15 nautical miles and a wing kit that further stretched that distance to 40.

The Kratos-designed TDI-J85 engine pushes that past 300.

The JDAM LR’s capabilities go beyond land strikes. The QuickStrike Long Range mining variant pairs it with a bomb carrying a ship-tracking sensor. Boeing has shown concepts loading large numbers onto Air Force bombers, though no Air Force buy has been announced.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, buys JDAM for both the Air Force and U.S. Navy. The first GBU-75s are bound for the Navy.

The Navy demonstrated the weapon back in April, when Super Hornets released two JDAM LRs over the Point Mugu Sea Range off California.

The April 1 round separated cleanly, fired up its engine and flew 34 minutes before landing within meters of its target. The April 3 round added altitude changes and maneuvering. Each covered roughly 200 nautical miles.

When announcing those tests in April, Capt. Sarah Abbott, the Navy’s Precision Strike Weapons program manager, emphasized the need to give the fleet’s JDAMs greater standoff range.

“As Naval Air Forces in theater continue to rely heavily on JDAM systems, the program recognizes a critical need to provide the fleet with greater standoff range,” she said. “This new capability allows pilots to engage targets from significantly safer distances, maintaining a tactical advantage in contested environments.”

Reusing existing infrastructure is a key aspect of the program’s appeal.

Navy budget documents describe JDAM LR as a modification to the baseline program, built on the existing production line and guidance hardware. Any jet that can drop a conventional JDAM can carry the new variant without modification, according to Boeing’s release.

The award, which had not appeared in the Pentagon’s daily contract announcements as of Aug. 5, is an undefinitized action, meaning Boeing began work before the two sides agreed on a price. The Government Accountability Office has long called these contracts risky because contractors are reimbursed for allowable costs, regardless.

Boeing’s release did not say how many GBU-75s the contract buys, how much they cost or when deliveries begin.

The Trump administration in December announced its intention to build a new class of large surface combatants, designated as the Trump-class guided missile battleship.

If built, the 35,000-ton nuclear battleship, according to the report, will be the most heavily armed surface vessel the U.S. Navy has ever built, possessing anti-air, land-attack and anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, large lasers and a rail gun.

“If built to those specifications, the ship would be the largest surface combatant in the world and larger than any surface combatant built for the Navy since World War II,” according to the report. “It would be more than three and a half times the size of the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer and more than twice the size of the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.”

The Navy projects that between 2028 and 2056 it will build 15 Trump-class guided missile battleships, with the subsequent 14 costing $18 billion each. By contrast, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s premier nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, cost approximately $13.3 billion.

By 2058, the total tonnage of “large surface combatants to be constructed would need to increase by 60 percent,” which the report notes “could be a challenge for the shipbuilding industry.”

The shift away from small surface combatants would mean that by 2035, shipyards would need to produce 12% greater tonnage under the 2027 plan than under the 2025 version, according to CBO’s estimation.

To keep pace with the service’s aims, the Navy would need to build a battleship about every other year from 2028 to 2056, the report notes, while continuing to produce two DDG-51 destroyers per year.

Last March, the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing nearly two decades of lackluster progress in U.S. shipbuilding. According to the GAO, not enough ships have been built, newly constructed ships are failing to function as expected and ships are being delivered up to three years later than ordered.

In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Shelby S. Oakley, a director at GAO, said that unrealistic expectations of costs and timing have diverted resources and introduced delays in shipbuilding, with the result that Navy programs and shipbuilders have been “effectively made to operate in a perpetual state of triage.”

The report also notes that while the price tag will be immense up front, over time, by switching to nuclear power, it would reduce the battleship’s operating costs by eliminating the need to purchase fuel. The GAO did not provide an estimate of possible savings.

Since the December announcement, the cost of Trump-class battleships has been a moving target, with the updated $23.4 billion roughly six billion more than the initial Navy projection.

Firestorm Labs manufactured more than 1,000 parts and 12 of its proprietary 3D-printable first-person view Squall drones aboard the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex as it transited toward RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii, according to a release.

“Every part xCell printed on deck is one that doesn’t need to be flown or shipped across contested waters — cutting the fuel, aircraft hours, and personnel it takes to keep a ship operational,” a social media release said. “Repairs that once meant days or weeks waiting on a resupply run can now happen in hours, on station.”

Firestorm Labs created the xCell as a factory-in-a-box that can be deployed aboard U.S. Navy vessels to churn out unmanned aerial systems and spare parts for expeditionary warfare.

As waves as high as 12 feet crashed against the ship, service members assembled drones that were later flown as adversary aircraft during a counter-drone exercise at RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii.

The service members also helped print mechanical test components that assessed the efficacy of the 3D printer used for drone production and fabricated military repair parts that crew members of the USS Essex needed.

The Defense Department, and Navy in particular, is laser-focused on building out modular payload capabilities that can deliver mission-ready assets for the service.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle announced the “containerized capability campaign plan” in March at the McAleese Defense Programs conference.

Caudle outlined a vision in which transportable containers housing defense capabilities such as drones and weapons can be deployed to any region in the world.

In May, the Pentagon announced framework agreements with defense companies Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos and Zone 5 to acquire more than 10,000 containerized missiles over three years beginning in 2027.

The move signaled the launch of the “Low‑Cost Containerized Munitions (LCCM) program.”

The extension is in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to curb illicit narcotics flowing into the United States via alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

Since 2023, Saildrone’s USVs have worked in coordination with the U.S. Navy, supporting the Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S) and U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. Navy Fourth Fleet, per the release.

“The continuity of Saildrone’s presence along the southern border for nearly three years demonstrates the strategic value we bring as the world’s most experienced operators of unmanned surface vehicles,” said Saildrone President VADM (ret.) John Mustin. “Our unmatched ability to remain on station and on mission in critical regions for months at a time is why our fleet serves as a powerful deterrent to bad actors. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Navy in its mission to secure the country’s maritime approaches and southern border.”

The 33-foot-long Voyager is designed for persistent surface and subsurface surveillance and can also conduct nearshore mapping missions and seafloor characterization, the release states.

Able to remain “on mission and on station” for months at a time, the USVs are “both a deterrent and an alarm” along the U.S.’s expansive southern maritime border, according to the company.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in support of what the Pentagon has called continued counternarcotics efforts.

As of June 22, the Trump administration and U.S. military have disclosed 66 strikes, killing at least 196 people.

The Next Generation C-sUAS Missile project comes as the U.S. and other nations are pursuing lasers, microwaves and other alternatives to kinetic anti-drone weapons, such as missiles and cannon, which are seen as too expensive and in short supply.

The Army wants to quickly develop an “extended-range, quick-response missile to defeat Group 2 and Group 3 small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) threats,” according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. The deadline is August 20.

The initial specifications are for a missile that can intercept a drone flying at 6 kilometers altitude, at a range of more than 16 kilometers. The ultimate goal is to destroy drones flying 8 kilometers high, at a range of more than 25 kilometers. Missile guidance would be via a radar seeker.

NGCM appears intended as a step up — but still compatible — with the Army’s Coyote C-UAS missile system.

“The Army is looking for NGCM to be produced and integrated into the existing Coyote Launch System to provide extended range, rapid launch time, and reduced time-to-target over current effectors,” the notice said.

The weapon is intended to stop Group 2 and 3 drones. Group 2 drones have a maximum gross takeoff weight of 21 to 55 pounds, fly below 3,500 feet and have a speed of less than 250 knots, according to the Department of Defense’s UAV classification system. This includes models such as Boeing’s ScanEagle. Group 3 drones, such as Insitu’s RQ-21 Blackjack, have a takeoff weight under 1,320 pounds and fly below 18,000 feet at a speed of less than 250 knots.

The NGCM missile should take less than five seconds to leave the launcher after the operator gives the fire command.

“The missile must be compatible with the Coyote Launcher with minimal to no modifications,” the notice said.

In addition, the missile must also fit with existing air defense systems, including the Sentinel A3/A4, LTAMDS and TPQ-53 radars.

The Army envisions the NGCM missile system in two versions. The fixed-site version would be equipped with a variety of sensors. A mobile version would be “mounted on tactical vehicles for employment at the halt and on-the-move, providing a scalable capability at the tactical edge.”

The Army is aiming for Technology Readiness Level 7 — prototype testing in the field — by the end of fiscal 2027. Contractors will need to have 50 missiles ready for operational assessment by the beginning of 2028.

Significantly, the Army desires missiles costing less than $150,000 apiece as part of a bulk purchase of 5,000 missiles. While that’s a bargain compared to a $4 million Patriot air-defense missile, critics may still question the economics: An Iranian Shahed-136 drone costs around $35,000.

That’s one reason for the drive to develop anti-drone lasers that, theoretically, cost only pennies per shot. On the other hand, missiles can function in bad weather that disrupts laser beams.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

“The current industrial base has demonstrated significant challenges, including production delays, quality control issues, and critical obsolescence (i.e., diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages) across key engine components,” warned the Air Force’s Request for Information. The deadline is Aug. 28.

“The government will pursue a strategic competition requiring industry to innovate manufacturing and guarantee supply chain resiliency,” the RFI said.

The initiative comes as the Air Force struggles with its jet engines.

For example, F-35 fighter deliveries and upgrades have been delayed by engine issues, with a Government Accountability Office report noting last year that “the engine contractor is still not delivering engines to contract specifications after 20 years of production.”

Meanwhile, B-52 modernization has been stalled in part by engine issues that have raised costs by $3 billion and delayed initial operational capability by 15 months, according to GAO.

In turn, the Air Force is now embarking on a multiyear fighter engine procurement project that envisions more than 180 engines per year by 2034. The RFI specifically cites engines for the F-15EX and F-16.

The RFI promises “five foundational pillars designed to drive a paradigm shift in engine procurement and sustainment,” as the government shifts from “legacy procurement toward incentivizing industry-led technological evolution and capacity expansion.” These include “holding vendors accountable” for delivering new engines that are more capable, reliable and cheaper.

The Air Force will focus “on the total lifecycle cost of the engine, not just the initial purchase price.”

Contractors are also responsible for ensuring reliable supply chains.

“We will implement an acquisition strategy that prioritizes ease of maintenance and establishes a resilient, sustainable supply chain from day one,” the Air Force said. “This effort is designed to solve key fleet-level issues by requiring a newer engine with improved supportability.”

“The result is a streamlined logistics footprint that reduces downtime, lowers the burden on our maintainers, and ensures the continuous flow of parts and support to maximize flightline readiness.”

Ultimately, the question is whether the U.S. defense industrial base can deliver. The Air Force intends to “enforce stringent producibility requirements.”

“We will select a partner capable of scaling production to meet surge requirements, guaranteeing a steady and uninterrupted supply of engines for USAF/FMS [Foreign Military Sales] aircraft (e.g. F-15EX and F-16) programs,” the RFI reads.

Companies responding to the RFI are asked to provide a variety of details, such as a timeline for developing and manufacturing an engine. They should also specify “at what minimum volume your supply chain can justify private capital investments (such as facility expansion, tooling modernization, or advanced automation) and how those investments will structurally lower your long-term unit costs.”

With nations competing to obtain raw materials — and China restricting sales of rare earths — the Air Force wants to be certain manufacturers can find the raw materials they need.

“From your company’s market perspective, what are the primary raw material constraints (e.g., specialized titanium/nickel alloys) or manufacturing process bottlenecks (e.g., advanced casting or forging capacity) that pose the highest risk to scaling up fighter engine production?” the RFI asks.

When compared to a rifle, though, a shotgun is less capable on the battlefield because it holds less ammunition, has a significantly shorter range and delivers more noticeable recoil. It also poses logistical hurdles. Someone has to carry it along with ammo that’s incompatible with other squad weapons.

In a nutshell, that’s how anti-drone ammo was born. Connor Schnepf, co-founder of the Arizona-based company Drone Round, explained that about a year ago, he and his partner were already making targets in the defense space when they learned that shotguns weren’t really working to address the military’s drone problem.

“It kind of sparked the idea with one of our other business partners. He was like, ‘Hey, we make ammo. Let’s make a rifle cartridge that almost simulates a shotgun that you can use in a regular battle rifle to shoot down drones,’” he said in an interview with Fox 10 Phoenix.

A small unmanned aerial system, or UAS, equipped with an explosive device can be used to destroy major infrastructure and expensive equipment. In turn, traditional counter measures prove either to be ineffective or too expensive to deploy. Therefore, the U.S. military is prioritizing inexpensive yet practical solutions.

Although Drone Round isn’t the only company making anti-drone ammo, the Marine Corps said in a notice of intent filed in June that its 5.56 L Variant is the only kinetic munition currently available in the commercial and defense marketplace that meets the service’s minimum standards for immediate counter-drone defense.

“Specifically, this round is the only solution offering ‘drop-in’ compatibility that requires no physical modifications, specialized upper receivers, or distinct weapon platforms to be operable in current-issue Marine Corps 5.56mm weapons,” the announcement said, referring to the M27 and M4A1.

Last week, the service confirmed with Task & Purpose that it has already bought 400,000 rounds from the company and plans to buy another 1 million in the next fiscal year.

Justin Lawrence, the company’s other co-founder, explained that the L Variant functions like a standard 5.56mm cartridge, but it has multiple projectiles.

“It’s essentially five bullets coming out of one trigger pull. Basically, what the real technology and advantage is sticking with the one caliber in a rifle platform, your soldier [or] warfighter is already carrying,” he said. “So you don’t have to change to a 12 gauge because these FPV drones move very fast and it’s something you need to have very quickly.”

From a logistical standpoint, a single magazine loaded with anti-drone ammo replaces an entire weapon system or expensive countermeasure.

Schnepf added that although they came up with the idea about almost a year ago, they didn’t have the ability to scale production, so they partnered with the Idaho-based Freedom Munitions. He said together, they now produce millions of rounds per month.

“The capability truly fills a gap in what we call counter UAS or counter unmanned aerial systems, so it is a needed solution … It’s like, you know, we brought water to a desert and they can’t keep enough of it because it’s so needed.”